• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

"Historic" BMI and ASCAP royalty rate increases for broadcast radio

There is an old saying "you can't get blood from a trunip".

Of course their lawyers will counter with the crazy valuations that let folks leverage up. IMHO the "big three" are only debt paying organizations. Unfortunately for debt holders if this happens, they most likely will be financially "taking haircuts" again.
 
And the tapes became the studio's cash cow after that.
For that reason, DRM is horseblinders for fear-driven industry people who're equally narrow of mind ... and it's prior restraint of rights for the public. In the latter case, you can't know which people will and won't press their record buttons for purposes covered by fair use when you build your DRM into their devices ahead of time, during manufacturing.

I still have one of those Macrovision-busting black boxes purchased out of a Popular Mechanics ad when I was probably about 12. The ones that had the 9 volt battery inside, with just two RCA composite input and output jacks. It's completely useless now. But I've never tossed it because as a keepsake, it makes for a nice symbol of freedom.
 
For that reason, DRM is horseblinders for fear-driven industry people who're equally narrow of mind ... and it's prior restraint of rights for the public. In the latter case, you can't know which people will and won't press their record buttons for purposes covered by fair use when you build your DRM into their devices ahead of time, during manufacturing.

I still have one of those Macrovision-busting black boxes purchased out of a Popular Mechanics ad when I was probably about 12. The ones that had the 9 volt battery inside, with just two RCA composite input and output jacks. It's completely useless now. But I've never tossed it because as a keepsake, it makes for a nice symbol of freedom.
I had an early VCR that ignored the Macrovision stuff when copying tapes. The Macrovision code was copied along as a relative borrowed one of my copied tapes and the code messed up her taping it.
 
I had an early VCR that ignored the Macrovision stuff when copying tapes. The Macrovision code was copied along as a relative borrowed one of my copied tapes and the code messed up her taping it.
I remember those days. Several early VCRs were immune to Macrovision because they had intelligently designed AGC circuits -- circuits with attacks and releases and gating thresholds that allowed excessively bright areas of the video to simply clip rather than triggering the AGC to reduce gain on the whole video signal. I.e., their AGCs were designed so that only pictures that were excessively bright overall would trigger gain reduction. The pulses of above-100 IRE video that Macrovision embedded into the VBIs of its protected tapes would sail straight through those circuits without causing them to spasm, making copying a breeze.

Believe it or not, Macrovision's people responded to the existence of those well-designed VCRs by making deals with (paying off) manufacturers to use simpler AGC designs in all future models that would react to Macrovision's >100 IRE pulses. Those simpler AGC circuits effectively behaved like stupid simple 1950s audio limiters that ducked on everything, even brief transients.

Every now and then, even into the 1990s, occasional VCR models would appear on the market whose designers employed proper, old school AGC circuits. People would be able to use those models to freely copy their protected tapes without the use of Macrovision stripping boxes. But as you experienced with your vintage model VCR, the >100 IRE pulses buried in each protected tape's VBI would go along for the ride, and "lie in wait" to frustrate any future copying attempts using "lesser" (most) VCRs.
 
Radio stations are now reporting their 2025 earnings, and one thing that is showing up is a retroactive charge for music royalties, tied to this agreement signed in October. So when Saga announced an operating loss for 2025, one of the items mentioned was a one time $2.2 million charge for music royalties:


A retroactive industry-wide settlement with two music licensing organizations also increased station operating expenses by $2.2 million during the year.

By retroactive, all radio stations had to make up for additional music royalties going back to 2022, in addition to what they'd already paid. The $2.2 million was just for Saga. You can imagine how big that charge was for Cumulus or iHeart. People often wonder what it costs radio stations to play music. Now you know.
 
By retroactive, all radio stations had to make up for additional music royalties going back to 2022, in addition to what they'd already paid. The $2.2 million was just for Saga. You can imagine how big that charge was for Cumulus or iHeart. People often wonder what it costs radio stations to play music. Now you know.

And Gene Simmons is still running around trying to convince anyone who will listen that a performance royalty on top of this is viable.
 
Ever heard someone do a dead-on celebrity voice impersonation? Or re-create the instrument section of a well-known song with virtual acoustic perfection? Because I wonder how much more perfect than even that you could tell AI to get in creating effectively identical-sounding covers that are still technically different enough to legally count as covers ... so you only have to pay mechanical licensing fees for everything you play. I mean, even though most traditionally-made covers are dead obvious, there's no law saying cover versions can't be made by musicians talented enough to fool large numbers of human ears.

I'm not being completely serious about this, but it would be hilarious waking up tomorrow only to find every big station group and online streaming platform playing 100% AI sound-alike covers of their inventories in a giant, collective boycott of the recording industry's exorbitant fees.
 
I'm not being completely serious about this, but it would be hilarious waking up tomorrow only to find every big station group and online streaming platform playing 100% AI sound-alike covers of their inventories in a giant, collective boycott of the recording industry's exorbitant fees.
I'd be very happy if Spotify did this so I can listen to Garth Brooks and Neil Young. Perform a boycott of their boycott.
 
I mean, even though most traditionally-made covers are dead obvious, there's no law saying cover versions can't be made by musicians talented enough to fool large numbers of human ears.

Keep in mind this is exactly how radio handled it in the 20s and 30s. That's partly why there is no royalty for labels or artists. The thing that's changed is the popularity of the specific artists. There were popular artists in the 20s and 30s too, but not as many. But sure, I can imagine big radio owners like iHeart getting into music ownership. Back then, radio companies like CBS and NBC also owned record labels and signed recording artists, who also hosted radio shows.
 
Back then, radio companies like CBS and NBC also owned record labels and signed recording artists, who also hosted radio shows.

And later -- although after the "golden age of radio" -- ABC also owned record labels.
 
Speaking of royalties, a reminder that radio also pays artists and labels for their digital streams. The rates for those digital streams will now increase by 25% over the next 3 years:


The reason radio pays for streams and not for analog broadcast signal is because digital signals cause a copyright issue that doesn't exist with broadcasting. The recording industry doesn't understand that basic difference. They argue that broadcasting and streaming are the same thing.
 
The reason radio pays for streams and not for analog broadcast signal is because digital signals cause a copyright issue that doesn't exist with broadcasting. The recording industry doesn't understand that basic difference. They argue that broadcasting and streaming are the same thing.

Or they understand that all too well and know that general public doesn't, so they can get away with framing it as being "unfair" without significant pushback.
 
Dunhill was a familiar ABC imprint on the pop charts in the '60s and '70s.

I thought about that but since only parent labels (Columbia for CBS, RCA Victor for NBC) were originally mentioned, I only compared apples to apples with my example.
 
Dunhill was a familiar ABC imprint on the pop charts in the '60s and '70s.

Even before that, there was the Paramount record label, when Paramount was part owner of ABC.

But yes, there was ABC Dunhill, ABC Impulse (a jazz label), and by the 70s, there was ABC Records, which was home to Steely Dan and Jimmy Buffett, before it was sold to MCA.
 
I think Dunhill was an independent before ABC bought it?

...goes to check...

OK, Dunhill was founded in 1964 by Lou Adler, with ABC as the distributor. In mid '67, Adler sold to ABC, which led to the label being known as ABC-Dunhill until ABC was bought by MCA in '79.

How am I doing?

c
 
Even before that, there was the Paramount record label, when Paramount was part owner of ABC.

But yes, there was ABC Dunhill, ABC Impulse (a jazz label), and by the 70s, there was ABC Records, which was home to Steely Dan and Jimmy Buffett, before it was sold to MCA.
To me, Dunhill will always be synonymous with the Grass Roots and Steppenwolf.
 


Back
Top Bottom